What's Canonical thinking about Bazaar?

[Ben Finney]

Martin Pool <mbp at canonical.com> writes:

> 2009/11/4 Ben Finney <ben+bazaar at benfinney.id.au>:
> > What disadvantages Bazaar is the perception that, instead of “Bazaar
> > is a community project (and thank you to Canonical for continuing to
> > make that possible)”, rather we have “Bazaar is a Canonical product
> > (and the community is along for the ride)”.
>
> Really […]

... doesn't matter. I'm not talking about the way things happen *after*
people start participating. I'm talking about the *perception* of
Bazaar.

Once more:

> > Note that *it does not matter* to what extent this perception is
> > true; it is the *perception* that is harmful.

The corrollary of this is that it doesn't matter how much you tell *me*
or anyone in this forum that it's not true. We're a completely different
audience who have already gained our first impression of Bazaar and are
much more committed to refining gradations of perception. We're very
much operating post-emotion with regard to what we think about the
project. (As for me, I feel good about Bazaar.)

No, the branding changes being discussed are going to harm Bazaar's
perception with those who have yet to *make* an emotional decision about
Bazaar. And it's that emotional decision that is so crucial to whether
*any* facts will matter at all in the person's subsequent decisions.

My complaint isn't about how these proposed changes will affect Bazaar's
*actual* ties to Canonical; it's how these proposed changes will affect
Bazaar's *perceived* ties to Canonical. I care about that because I want
Bazaar to become more widespread, and for that to happen, perception is
*vital* in a way that mere facts and argument are not.

> I'd like to pick apart the problems here because I think "Bazaar
> suffers from being too closely tied to Canonical" is too vague to
> either rebut or address or change.

Good, because that's not what I'm saying. I hope the above (and a
repeat reading of my other messages in this thread) will reveal
something more specific to grapple with.

> "Owned by the community" sounds nice (though somewhat socialist) but
> what does it actually mean? (Not a rhetorical question.)

Fortunately, we don't need to *know* exactly what it means in order to
promote a perception of it.

If Bazaar has a website that's all “Bazaar the community-owned VCS
project”, with its own domain, its own branding, and a clear promotion
of contributions and direction from users other than Canonical — and if
Canonical gets the credit for sponsorship and support but does *not*
loom like an owner or a board of directors — that's good for the
perception of the project, and it will encourage adoption by free
software projects.

I fear that the proposed branding changes that started this thread are
the direct opposite of that.

-- 
 \         “Simplicity and elegance are unpopular because they require |
  `\           hard work and discipline to achieve and education to be |
_o__)                                appreciated.” —Edsger W. Dijkstra |
Ben Finney